Talk:Highway of Death

POV issues

I realize the temptation is great for some people to insert the anti-American propaganda associated with the "Highway of Death", but this either must be done in a non-POV manner in accordance with the policies of this site, or not at all.

All sources I have deleted were not only POV, they were factually inaccurate. There is no evidence supporting a claim that "tens of thousands" of Iraqi soldiers died thanks to the US destruction of their vehicles. There is similarly no evidence that civilians were killed. If these claims are to be included in the article, they must either be accompanied by an evidentiary basis, or they must be properly described as speculative, unsupported allegations, and the sources must be identified so readers can assess their credibility.

Personally, I think the existing article sums up the best evidence available to date in a non-POV way. For those who might be confused what I mean when I say POV in regard to this article, here are some illustrations:

pro-American / anti-Iraqi POV: "Those Iraqi aggressor scum deserved to die on that road! Their charred vehicles are proof that God was on America's side that day!"

anti-American / pro-Iraqi POV: "The Americans committed a war crime. The American cowards, wearing uniforms, attacked retreating army to feel good about its power.

I deleted several links because the whole point of the linked articles was to accuse US forces of war crimes. Given the evidence at hand, such claims are ridiculous propaganda. They do not further a good faith search for truth. - Kaltes, February 04, 2005

Fair comments. I've yet to read an account that looks properly researched with verifiable sources. The key point to me, however, is that the only people desperate to get from Kuwait to Iraq during the last days of the conflict (or at any point from the invasion of August 1990) were Iraqi soldiers, which makes the claim of widespread civilian loss implausible. They were attacked during hostilities - and that, after all, is what war, regrettably, is about (killing the enemy) - so it wasn't some sort of 'war crime'. In fact the US was criticised afterwards for thinking it had destroyed Saddam's army when it plainly had not, hence the gross miscalculation in thinking that the uprising would succeed, sitting back waiting for it to happen, and thence leaving thousands to die. That was the real crime of the first Gulf War JRJW 20 December 2005

I concur. As one can clearly see in the pictures, they are all (with no exception) Iraqi military vehicles, well, what remained. I don't think such comments about mass fatalities among civilians should be added unless there is an actual source (credible, not Aljazeera). - Eagle^amn 12:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There were some civilians in the convoy, many families of a collaborants (many former Palestinian workers in Kuwait, who after the Iraqi invasion had formed a militia to help the occupation - Arafat was the only pro-Saddam Arab national leader in the war), but also Kuwaiti prisoners and hostages. Most of a vehicles were actually various civilian and stolen in Kuwait (including even fire trucks), often loaded with a loot you see scattered in the photos.

I believe Seymour Hersh wrote an excellent article for the New Yorker that mentioned this. It should be added to external sources, and probably should be used as a source as well.

The fact that there's not a single quote from non-pro-american sources shows how biased this article is. This was yet another warcrime committed during a war started on lies.The phrase "anti-american" has been used on so many righteous people by now that we can consider it a compliment.

186.156.28.83 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

80

Various sources identify the road as 'Highway 80'; this link [1] in particular is handy, as it has a rough map of the road (it's the second red arrow from the left). The thing is, did the Iraqis call it Highway 80, the Kuwaitis, the Americans, or who? I assume that, one day, Wikipedia will have articles on every major road in the world, in which case this page will have to be renamed. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why would we rename the page based on that? We usually call battles "the battle of arbitrary_landmark" or "operation totally_irrelevant_word", not "the battle of x longitude and y latitude". OTOH, it is pretty much inevitable that an even more heinous attack will occur on some highway at some point in the future, at which point it may be more desirable to repurpose the name for that... Straker 23:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Besides, there is no consistent naming for other highways in that area, so it wouldn't make much sense to rename it, even if the battle itself never happened and it's just known as that. -- Eagle^amn 06:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You sir are a moron, who have not been there, and can not judge what happened watching the photos.

The Movie Jarhead

I think some mention of the highway's appearance in the movie Jarhead might be warranted, but I'm not certain how to go about doing it appropriately. Are there any other mentions in popular culture or literature? I imagine that scene is taken from the book Jarhead.

Insert a "Fictional Depictions" section at the end of the article, before the references section, then devote a short (1 to 2 sentences) paragraph to each separate depiction. That would seem to be the standard. As for other references, I have no idea. You'd have to sniff around. TaintedMustard 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A few hundred death?

This is nonsense. You don't destroy almost 2000 vehicles and only kill "a few hundred". Time to call for {{totallydisputed}}. Please get your facts right. Dabljuh 03:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article reads a fair one at the moment. I don't see the justification of the "totally disputed" since part of it is a direct quote and part is to the WW2 incident. GraemeLeggett 10:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless the vehicles have people in them they can be destroyed without people dieing.Prezen 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a PBS quote - PUBLIC broadcasting service - Government owned. "No, we didn't do no war crimes". A google lucky search on "Highway of Death" produces this, quite a startling report of the incidence at the Highway of Death. Even more startling however is that the only sort of detailed account of what happened in the article is an US government presentation, that says "No we didn't do no war crimes". I think that would be non-NPOV and also factually disputable. And here, even more details can be found. I don't think the current article has any relationship with what really happened there, or it is heavily slanted in favor of the US POV. More here still. Thus {{totallydisputed}} would be appropriate. Hell, why do you think they called it "Highway of Death" and not "Highway of many totally destroyed vehicles"? There is some significant amount of "POV" (facts) missing in there. Dabljuh 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

this <--- that is the most biased, amateurishly written, mindless, cranckpot, anti-american preaching I've ever been witnessed to. Even the North Korean propaganda I've found is less biased and anti-american than that is. It looks like it was written by a twelve year old ffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.53.181 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that "a few hundred" were killed; the U.S. Government does, and the article makes that very clear. If you want to add external references, or expand on the claims of human rights activists and the others, then go ahead. It's a lot more efficient than adding a disputed tag and then complaining on the talk page (no offense). TaintedMustard 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed. this seems cut and dry to me. If there are reports saying otherwise (there are) put them in. But the US governments opinion on this is certainly relevent, and may be biased by default. Oreo man 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

PBS isn't government owned.

Ramsey Clark

The German interwiki article on this subject mentions that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark also cited the bombings as a war crime. If someone has a source for this, please include it. Thanks. Gilliamjf 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a book: "War Crimes: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq" by Ramsey Clark.

In the table of contents you can read: "The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death" page 90"

http://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Against-Activism-Politics/dp/0944624154/sr=8-1/qid=1169647382/ref=sr_1_1/104-5939450-7820756?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0944624154-0

I guess this book should be added as a source.

IMHO the article itself should be added to the category "War Crimes" which alredy exists on Wikipedia (I'm sorry that I don't have the knowledge to do so)

Amethyst1974 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

--

The article states

Activist and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark argued that these attacks violated the Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."

and cites Elaine Sciolino (February 22, 1998). "The World: Theater of War; The New Face of Battle Wears Greasepaint". The New York Times.

The NYT article does not seem to have anything to do with this claim however and the closest to a citable resource I could find was in this talk page. At this point it should be replaced with a citation needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.48.66.130 (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Geneva Convention

What does it say about armed looters trying to escape? That's about the Highway, becuause at Junkyard it was more like a military withdrawal. --HanzoHattori 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing about either cases. The cited convention dealt with POWs. Prezen 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GCIII was indeed in 1949, and shouldn't be mistaken for GCIV. Of course the Fourth has nothing to do with this situation. However, GCIII has EVERYTHING to do with this situation, and clearly labels the Highway of Death as a war crime of sickening proportions. White flags of surrender are considered laying down arms, but that doesn't mean much in the face of a cluster bomb used on a civilian vehicle the Iraqi forces were fleeing in.

Geneva Convention III, ARTICLE 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

-A US Veteran who doesn't care to register to address this appalling ignorance. Take this one as a freebie.

Historic Parallel

The "Historic Parallel" section shouldn't be here at all. First, it does not actually contribute to the understanding of what actually happened on Highway 80. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where retreating troops have been wiped out in grand fashion; those get their own articles, and if we want to make a list of them, sure, but not on this page. Also, this paragraph states that the attack on Highway 88 "mirrored" the attacks on the Falaise pocket; this claim is problematic because (a) it is unsourced, and (b) the article later states that the troops in the Falaise pocket attempted to surrender, and nowhere (in this article at least) is it established that the troops on Highway 88 made any attempt to surrender.Nosferatublue 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Synth

I tagged the Geneva Conventions for synth. It's possible that this is the case, but we need a reliable source who has made this allegation. Dchall1 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was there

Army Medic- A grunts best friend says: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the very few to go down the valley of death a day or so after it happened and there were hardly any bobies, I guess we saw about 3 dozen mainly incinerated corpses. Not pleasant, but I did not personally see the thousands of dead that others accuse. Consider this - the valley of death was flanked on the West by a huge minefield which had tank mines and helicopter poles in (to prevent an offensive - lets guess who put them there? You are right - the Iraqi's. The east (shore side) was a rock / sandstone cliff (you could not bury anything there). The north and south of the road were similar - so where did all the bodies go? There were some corpses that had come up through the sand (this does happen in sand as it moves in the wind), but no more than a dozen or so. Most vehicles were burned out and only one coach we saw had any corpses in it. Tanks (a few) did have dead in. As did a large ambulance. I think (and this is a considered think - 16 years in the making) that the majority walked, but some of the drivers would have probably stayed behind and been killed. This was not a war crime but it was one of the last offensives of the war from an army that was fleeing - the brutality we witnessed when we visited sites was horrific - war is a brutal business; the Iraqi Armed Forces were not pink and fluffy - they treated civilians and soldiers very badly - we saw the evidence. I was an Army medic by the way (British)and walking and driving down the valley of death will live with me and my colleagues for the rest of our lives. Arm chair Generals rarely make good soldiers! Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DESMO THRUST

212.183.134.209 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Desmo Thrust

(Engineer) Relpying 12 years later, but I was in 1st BDE, 3rd AD, I would say I personally saw like you said about couple dozen incinerated corpses, but I did see at least another dozen along the side of the road that were not incinerated. One I remember in particular, had to be the tallest Iraq I ever saw. Someone covered his face up, but the depth of the Handkerchief (lightblue colored, ive always remembered that) they used you can tell the top part of his head that the sinus cavity was exposed. I recall also seeing a lot of nice cars burnt up as well as dead horses. I felt there were more, but had no desire to keep looking. As to thousands as claimed by some, I don't think so. pretty sure majority ran and left their vehicles. Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.56.180.130 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me more about what you saw? My uncle was among those missing in this crime. I really miss him Laith coloniol (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Environmental Situation?

It would be nice if any information can be found on what environmental impact the destroyed vehicles, equipment, and supplies may have, especially after sitting there for 18 years. What steps has the Kuwait Government taken to clean up the remains? Dpaanlka (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note re: Casualty Figures

I seriously suggest the claims of civilian casualties be taken with a grain of salt, for several reasons:

1) a modest portion of the vehicles destroyed in the strikes were Kuwaiti civilian autos, stolen by Iraqi soldiers or Palestinian-Kuwaiti 3rd-columnists. Typically they were packed with looted goods (furniture, gold, etc) from Kuwaiti residences and businesses and then driven back into Iraq to be fenced on the black market. Some of them made it, some of them didn't. Regardless, anyone driving a looted Kuwaiti automobile into a war zone was NOT able to claim protection as a civilian non-combatant (CNC) under the Geneva convention.

2) I have not personally laid eyes on any investigation which gives concrete examples of GENEVA-CONVENTION RECOGNIZED civilian noncombatants being killed by airstrikes in this area. Many people seem to be confusing the concepts of "civilian who does not wear a uniform, but has been in active support of the Iraqi army's military operation, has been armed and protected by the Iraqi army, and is returning to Iraq with looted civilian goods" and "civilian non-combatant per the Geneva Convention". The two are not the same. One is considered a partisan (i.e- an illegal combatant, like at Gitmo) and is subject to being summarily shot wherever they are found. Look it up.

2a) Since there's nearly no intact (or extant) bodies to examine for evidence, one could conceivably, therefore, call every charred corpse in a civilian clothes in a civilian vehicle a "civilian non-combatant killed by the US". This would, of course, be grossly inaccurate.

3) Ockham's Razor. Why were they there at all? If I was a civilian fleeing to Iraq, it'd be because I knew the Kuwaitis were about to get their country back and as soon as they did, my head was going to be on the block for collaboration. If I was going, I'd take a bunch of nice shit with me. Why not? And I can tell you for damn sure that if I heard a plane, I'd run like HELL. Alternately, we have buses full of nuns and pregnant women getting nuked off the highway with Maverick missiles while George Bush rubs his palms with glee. Uh huh. Enough bullshit, please. People will say all kinds of bullshit when their hands are caught in the cookie jar. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 08:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Ockham's Razor, they were there because they fucking lived in the area, unlike the war criminals and mercenaries who traveled half across the world to destroy one country and dominate the other.

186.156.28.83 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we keep both attacks in one article?

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I presume you mean the Highway of Death vs Battle of the Junkyard? In which case i say no, these should not be lumped together. A signifigent portion of the controversies section is about the Battle of the Junkyard, but this is unclear from the article itself. In one instance, we have two quotes, one about junkyard and another about HoD with no indication that we are talking about different engagements. I am going to cut out the March 2nd Junkyard stuff and paste it here, pending perhaps a new article on the topic. Bonewah (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with separating the two, and I've changed the link to this article in the Gulf War campaign infobox [2] as it was also referencing the two battles as one engagement. ViperNerd (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

March 2 attack

On the coastal Highway 8, known as the place of the Battle of Rumailah/Rumaylah or Battle of the Junkyard, vehicles of the elite Iraqi Republican Guard 1st Armored Division Hammurabi had been destroyed over a much larger area in smaller groups and attacking Allied ground forces (namely the U.S. 24th Infantry Division) played a key role in the attack. The vehicles, practically every one of which was destroyed, were predominantly military. The American commanding general described the carnage as "one of the most astounding scenes of destruction I have ever participated in." While the Hammurabi Division ceased to exist, only one U.S. soldier was injured and a Bradley IFV and an Abrams tank were destroyed, none of them by enemy fire, but by flying debris from exploding Iraqi vehicles. The attack took place two days after the war was officially halted by American ceasefire, when the Iraqis and the Allied coalition were scheduled to begin formal peace talks.

Also questioned was the decision by General Barry McCaffrey to attack Iraqis near the Rumailah oil fields after the official ceasefire. According to journalist Seymour Hersh,

McCaffrey's insistence that the Iraqis attacked first was disputed in interviews for this article by some of his subordinates in the wartime headquarters of the 24th Division, and also by soldiers and officers who were at the scene on March 2. The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey's offensive, two days into a ceasefire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally fulfilling the requirements of the retreat.

References

Nothing To Do With Civilians

The allegation of 10,000 civilian deaths is completely unsupported. The only thing involving civilians would point to the escaping Iraqi looters who were trying to get away with civilian vehicles. I was there in the aftermath and catalogued the military equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davelax102 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Additions to 'In Popular Culture'

I've expanded the pop cult section to include mention of Tony Harrison's poem 'A Cold Coming', which was inspired by imagery from the Highway of Death. Although I've cited sources and provided links, I'm not sure how to make them appear correctly at the bottom of the page (they're there, but they look a little bare). Could someone more technologically-minded please assist with this? Thanks BlackMarlin (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a encyclopedia

Just because almost everyone think it's wrong doesn't mean we have to say it's wrong in a encyclopedia, as it is unnecssary to make people who think it is correct feel bad. All this article is supposed to do is to sum up the event.

We also cannot make concludions about things without evidence: There is no evidence that hostages held by Iraq were killed(maybe some of their bodies are fake hostages) There is no evidence that Iraqi civilians were killed(maybe they're soldiers that abandoned their equpitment) There is no evidence that many Iraqi soldiers were murderers/rapists/looters(maybe some are) There is no evidence that American troops didn't shoot at people escaping from their vehicles(maybe the sources are making up infomation they don't know about)

114.240.126.200 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Mr. Anonymous

False information

There were no allied personnel killed or planes shot down. --82.160.239.145 (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bogus Photo

That "highway 80" photo is bogus. Those are un-damaged abandoned vehicles, covered in graffiti, and looted (wheels taken, etc). None of the street-lights or roads show any damage, and nothing in it appears to have anything to do with fighting, besides one old tank under the rubble.

The photo's EXIF data is dated 2006, and someone has used Photoshop on it, so there's no way to tell what they changed or what other nefarious things they might have been upto by trying to pass it off as a '91 war shot.

One element of EXIF data suggest the camera used was a D50 - the first of these were made in 2005.

If nothing else - the caption to the photo needs fixing, it's definitely not a 1991 photo as claimed! 120.151.160.158 (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Might be an inaccurate description -- "demolished" versus "abandoned" -- but that's as far as I will agree with you.

You can view this exact photo on the Department of Defense's imagery website [3] by searching the photo number, DF-ST-92-09592, or just by searching for "Highway 80." If you search for "Highway 80," two other photos come up that are listed as being taken by the same TSgt Joe Coleman, in the same lighting conditions, and those photos definitely show obvious battle damage.

This particular image looks like a scan done of a slide or negative -- slide film and negative film are how we used to take pictures before digital cameras. The film grain in the full resolution image is patently obvious. While a photo taken with a digital camera at a higher digital ISO setting would produce grain, it would also be more likely to produce chromatic aberration or purple fringing -- given the lighting and the amount of highlights in this photo, I'd certainly expect to see some purple fringing, but I see none. And I didn't see anything in the EXIF data that said either Nikon or D50 -- but I did see plenty of EXIF data on the scanning process.

But other than that . . . nice try with the detective work. Hzoi (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I'm copy editing this article for a class, and I will return with my edits in roughly two weeks. If possible, please don't make any changes until then! Thanks! Dobsonsf (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Antitank Mines laid by Marines? Where is the source?

I flew one mission that attacked the convoy on the last night of the war. I'm not aware of any antitank mines being used by Marine aviation or ground forces. My squadron (and our partner Marine A-6 squadron, VMA(AW)-224) probably hit that highway harder than any other unit and I may have been one of the very first jets (if not the first) to attack the convoy. We basically flew a teardrop pattern, first dropping 6 Mk-82 500 lb bombs on the rear of the convoy (as depicted by using the moving target indicator feature of the radar) and then proceeding north for a few miles turning about 30 deg left, then making a right-hand 150 deg turn to turn due south. Again, using the moving target indicator mode, I targeted the north end of the convoy and dropped the remaining 6 500 lb Mk-82s. These were typically dual-fused with an impact fuse in the tail and a VT fuse in the nose, dropped unguided using radar (augmented with laser ranging) from about 6,000 ft MSL. A 37mm AAA gun opened up on us as we were watching our hits. The bombs landed right at the front of the convoy and definitely started or added to a bad traffic jam. My login isn't working but I'll try and keep an eye on this.

I've got to add that my logbook shows the flight occurring on the 25th, not the 26th or 27th. It was a fairly early launch - probably around 2030 for our first flight (where we hit vehicles on the Hwy that runs E/W south of Kuwait City), then we returned to hot refuel and hot rearm before the flight I described above. 63.232.44.130 (talk)Michael K. —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

[4] --Niemti (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, "The first A-6 attacks bottled up the corridor with CBU-78 Gator air-delivered mines." (The 3d Marine Aircraft Wing in Desert Shield and Desert Storm - Page 162) --Niemti (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole article could be much better sources (and maybe expanded too). --Niemti (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It was Rockeye not GATOR mines

Considering I was flying the airplane that not only discovered the convoy of vehicles which had just started heading out of Kuwait City, we did not drop GATOR mines and THEN drop Rockeye. When we flew missions we either carried one of the other, but not both. There were no GATOR mines unless a later airplane dropped them because they ran our of Rockeye.

We started by dropping 12 Rockeye in chained sets of 2 at a 45 degree angle to the road to ensure coverage. As we blocked the road, we bombed the rear vehicles as well as the vehicles trying to pass around the sides of the vehicles that were blocking the road.

We made 6 runs total and dropped 12 Rockeye, which was our loadout. A british TV program titled "Panorama" interviewed us afterward when the USMC informed them who the pilot and BN was. Not sure if it every aired or to what extent because I never saw it.

But it was not GATOR and then Rockeye. It was done completely with Rockeye. 20:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Language added by 76.20.61.181 asserting bias is itself unabashedly biased

Not all agreed with this point of view, although many arguments against General Schwarzkopf's views are colored by their political biases

This is an editorial opinion, not a sourced fact.

Above pro-Saddam views have since been subject to various degrees of scrutiny, with many alleging it attempts to manipulate western values and sensitivities while casually dismissing any lack of supporting evidence and facts in favor of emotional, shallow, and selectively moralistic wordings to deceive the audience.

Blatantly biased. There's no place for editorializing here. Quoting verifiable sources that hold this point of view is fine; expressing it as an encyclopedic fact is not. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Highway of Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911191942/http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050127.media.perlmutter.photojournalism.html to http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050127.media.perlmutter.photojournalism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Highway of Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215074409/http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm to http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead seems biased

It makes no mention of the war crimes accusations, but does say this:

Many Iraqi forces, however, successfully escaped across the Euphrates river, and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that upwards of 70,000 to 80,000 troops from defeated divisions in Kuwait might have fled into Basra, evading capture.

According to the people accusing the United States of war crimes, retreating forces are supposed to be allowed to escape; they're not supposed to be bombed. Why isn't this mentioned? As far as I can see in the Controversy section, this is the only argument against the war crimes accusations:

Journalist Georgie Anne Geyer criticized Hersh's article, saying that he offered "no real proof at all that such charges—which were aired, investigated and then dismissed by the military after the war—are true."

This has become somewhat of a cliche in recent years; the idea that militaries or police forces are capable of clearing themselves of wrongdoing has been widely panned for a good reason. The U.S. Military isn't qualified to write a Wikipedia article about the Highway of Death; that would be called a conflict of interest. How on Earth could they clear themselves of war crimes? Imagine if the Nazis had tried themselves. Or Saddam Hussein had tried himself.

The article is written in such a way that it not only downplays and trivializes the charges, but it actually portrays the U.S. Military as too weak for allowing some Iraqis to avoid capture. Which honestly seems like a shockingly far-right stance for anyone to take, and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Finsternish (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

False balance

There is currently an edit war going on between me and @Scoundr3l: over their attempt to change the word "victims" to "dead," under the assumption that "victims" is a value-laden word. My issue with this is that "victims" contains the information that they died because someone killed them, rather than simply dying. "Dead" contains no information as to how they died. I think Scoundr3l is equivocating with the word "victim," confusing the subjective sense of "person who was wronged" with the objective sense of "object of a destructive act."

Calling them "dead" sounds Orwellian to me, an attempt at false balance; neutral point of view doesn't mean eliminating facts to make the situation seem more neutral than it really is. With that said, is there a better word than "dead" or "victim" which continues to contain the sense of how they died?

Finally, Scroundr3l, in the edit history, you misunderstood the concept of "conservative correctness"; it is political correctness as applied by conservatives, not conservative bias as such. Finsternish (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I wouldn't exactly call it an edit war. I reverted you once on an issue of verifiability, which I believe is justifiable. Second, since the source uses the word "dead", any issue you have with that word is your own and not representative of the source. If you, as an editor, think it's important to change the language used by the source because it introduces more information, that's the definition of editorialization. You're introducing information that isn't in the cited piece. See WP:V. I understand the use of the word "victim" and I'm not even disagreeing with it, but it must be asked why you insist of using this word. You yourself seem to realize how it's ambiguous, so why should we not prefer the language used in the source? What, if not value, is added by changing the language? Finally, I don't see any practical difference between "politicial correctness applied by conservatives" and "conservative bias", but let's not split hairs on that. I'm not a conservative and the (quite liberal) source uses "dead". You're welcome to disagree with the source's language, but that doesn't really apply to the application of policy. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think 'dead' is the correct wording. There is basically no question how they died as the rest of the article makes clear so im not persuaded by the argument that "Dead" contains no information as to how they died. Further, the quote itself uses the word dead so i think we should just for consistency sake. Bonewah (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Should an event taking place in a fictional country with vastly different details in the new COD game be referenced in the article

The real event involved coalition forces in the past bombing Iraqi soldiers during their invasion of Kuwait. The fictional event takes place in the future in the fictional state of Urzikstan and involves Russians bombing civilians fleeing the Russian invasion. The only shared feature is the name. There is currently an editor edit-warring by making 4 reverts, the last under a name meant to imitate me, while using the edit page as a discussion forum and accusing me of doing so. Please discuss here instead. My opinion is that it should not be included as it's not a reference to the event, especially with no valid sources. AlignedText (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's very clear what the intentions are in naming it after the real life event, with the misattribution for the crimes committed in question. Ignoring the obvious attempt at whitewashing US war crimes isn't helping anyone, and I'm sure even relatively mainstream media sources will report on and confirm the intentions such that this incident can be added to the Popular Culture section of this article. 50.200.179.130 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)whatever

I appreciate that you want to express that bombing invading soldiers during a war is a crime, or that the coalition didn't exist and it was just the US, but you should make a separate thread for that. The topic of this thread is whether an unrelated fictional event that shares the same name should be referenced in this article and how. AlignedText (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe it should be included due to the similarities. There is only 1 event in history, and on this entire site, with the title "highway of death". In the game the "highway of death" is an event where a superpower bombed a highway of fleeing vehicles during its one-sided war with a middle eastern country.

https://i.imgur.com/VreLQkA.png

https://i.imgur.com/xq107Yz.png

Even the imagery of the aftermath is the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD1Hzl2TjWw

The main thrust of the counter-argument is that it is set in a fictional country. However, simply naming your location "not-Iraq" does not immediately render all parallels between the ingame and real world null and void. You would have to ignore the precedent set in countless pieces of media, with poorly disguised sci-fi Soviet and US analogues. Even Avatar, set on another planet and in the far future, is rightly seen as making references to US overseas interventions simply due to its inclusion of terms like "shock-and-awe" and the distinctive UH-1 "thwop-thwop" sound effect for its flying machines. There's considerable precedent in video games. Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead's Takistan is an openly acknowledged stand-in for Pakistan. Medal of Honor Warfighter has a mission that recreates the rescue of Captain Phillips from the Maersk Alabama hijacking, despite it taking place in a different year in a different location.

That argument's also massively undermined by the fact that the game uses local Iraqi place names like Haditha. https://abload.de/img/i5fyresw3j4s.png The "highway of death" did take place on the Kuwaiti side of Highway 80, but the event is still synonymous with Iraq.

As for sources, I'm unsure which to use as image and youtube links are rather ephemeral. The controversy is definitely getting coverage by media outlets. https://www.vg247.com/2019/10/28/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-of-death-russia/

I believe the original text was the best as it included the context of Iraqi place names, as the game's fictionality is the biggest point of contention in discussions both here and elsewhere. I would change the "committed" part though to "attributed":

In the 2019 video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, an event of similar circumstance occurs as part of the game's story and is referred to by characters as the "highway of death", only in this case it is attributed to the Russian military instead of Coalition forces. Though the event takes place in the fictional country of Urzikstan, the game still retains local Iraqi place names such as Haditha.

Temp89 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"The main thrust of the counter-argument is that it is set in a fictional country." Incorrect. The "main thrust" is that the fictional event is vastly different in detail in a game set in an alternate history future. There can very well be two events called "Highway of Death" in a fictional universe. For example, the game also shows the US using white phosphorous at the start. Should that also be included in war crimes involving white phosphorous? The game makes no indication that this Highway of Death is the only one in existence, nor that the original didn't happen. In the game, the event happens in a fictional country bordering Russia. Additionally, the targets of the bombing are not invading soldiers that haven't surrendered, but civilians fleeing an invasion. Finally, it happens in the future, not in 1991, nor does it state the previous Highway didn't happen. Your suggestion mentions "instead" a coalition not related to the second Highway, implying that it's erasing the original bombing of the invading Iraqi soldiers, and it also irrelevantly mentions Iraqi locations whereas the real world event took place in Kuwait.

In the 2019 video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, a similarly named Highway of Death in a fictional country involves Russian forces bombing fleeing civilians in contrast to the bombing of invading soldiers.

AlignedText (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the content of my post. For starters the game's Highway of Death occurred "decades ago", not in the game's "present day". It's already been shown that pieces of media have changed locations and times whilst still referencing events, so that entire point is moot. To maintain this facade that media can't be referencing real-life events if the details aren't identical would mean having to retroactively remove whole swaths of content from all over the site. It's a laughable claim that no student of Media Studies 101 would ever entertain. The name, the imagery, the locations...

It's also strange for you to argue that the game universe is entirely fictional and therefore can't possibly have any relation with real-world events, whilst simultaneously claiming it mirrors real-life exactly so this could be a second highway of death.

Finally, the fact that you repeatedly use such a reductionist description of the event as "bombing invading soldiers during a war", when on the very page we're discussing there's plenty of content about claims of civilian caravans and Kuwaiti hostages mixed in makes me question your objectivity. Personally feeling that such claims are over-stated or, when compared to your typical military operation, not deserving of controversy is one thing. But to actually want to stick that description of the event on the page belies your biases.

https://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-modern-warfare-highway-death-russia-gulf-war-1468207 More outlets are covering this. "'CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE' REWRITES THE HIGHWAY OF DEATH AS A RUSSIAN ATTACK, RATHER THAN AMERICAN" seems like a good enough source to warrant its place on the page.Temp89 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense about some video game should be removed and forbidden from this article. Bonewah (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The term "highway of death" is a relatively simple construction, there is no indication that this particular use is really related to the actual historical event. The newsweek source you cite is fairly weak, only mentioning that the game refers to a "highway of death" and then describing the real thing. Bonewah (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say the Highway of Death as a the title of an event has only occurred once in history (and only returns one result on this site). It's emphasised as the name of the place rather than a casual tacking on of the "of death" suffix to some obstacle the characters are facing. The game could have made the event completely different, such as Venezuelan terrorists sniping drivers causing a pile-up in the US, or high-tech suicide drones attacking a VIP convoy in Serbia. Call of Duty's remit in terms of settings and battlefields is wide. But they chose to make it an aerial bombardment of a highway of fleeing vehicles by a superpower during its one-sided war with a middle eastern country.

https://media.criticalhit.net//2019/10/COD-Highway-of-Death-2.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD1Hzl2TjWw&t=160

vs

https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1572376260536-1280px-Demolished_vehicles_line_Highway_80_on_18_Apr_1991.jpeg

https://img.etimg.com/thumb/msid-62008594,width-640,resizemode-4,imgsize-323050/highway-of-death-iraq.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/khwsxovjwoqcujkoslpj.jpg

The follow-up response is usually that the setting is fictional. And I would say that simply naming your location "not-Iraq" does not immediately render all parallels between the ingame and real world null and void. If Avatar can make successful parallels between itself and Vietnam & Iraq despite being set a hundred years in the future and on an entirely different planet, then this clears the bar easily. Indeed, many many pieces of media have retooled real-life events to fit their plots, and none more so than video games (see previous Talk for more examples). Vice has a good article on how the game blurs situations together because for most consumers, there would be little difference:

"In the minds of most Americans, the Forever War exists in a nebulous country Over There. We’re fighting in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and North Africa. But all these places are treated as interchangeable.

In the popular imagination, the mountains of the Korengal Valley are next to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, across the street from the tank graveyards of Syria, downriver from the poppy fields of Kabul, and a just a quick drive down the Cairo–Dakar Highway. The popular and political imagination can no longer tell them apart—hell, it never could—and popular art is not attempting to make a distinction."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmwgn/modern-warfare-the-highway-of-death-and-call-of-dutys-exploitation-of-the-past

Secondly, I would argue it's now reached the point of where our personal interpretations no longer matter. The sheer volume of media coverage from non-tinpot sources warrants inclusion, even if couched in terms of "claims", "accusations", or "backlash". I would include a mix of mainstream news sources like the BBC that are known to have more rigorous editorial processes but will have less detailed entertainment coverage, and more consumer media-centric outlets that do deep dives on the subjects like Eurogamer (who I believe have been cited by news outlets when covering gaming media). There is no shortage of articles to choose from.Temp89 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Video Game Propaganda?

The article does include the fact that a Call of Duty game depicts this war crime but shifts the blame to Russia instead - since the US Military works to help develop the Call of Duty games, that makes the shift of responsibility something worth mentioning in a way more direct than the casual parenthetical it currently has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.196.172 (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"The US military work to help develop the Call of Duty games" seems a nebulous, documentable claim unless we are counting retirees acting as advisors as proof of an institutional, material effort to "help develop". I cannot find any sources on the US military actually funding the franchise, let alone providing technical assistance. 2601:640:C000:6490:2179:205F:BD67:FC64 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

Under the "In Popular Culture" section, I would like to include a reference in the 2019 game Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4. The reference includes a false statement that the Russian Federation bombed the retreating Iraqi forces on the highway when it was really coalition forces led by the United States. Atoledo29 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sceptre (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

John Pilger as a source?

Don't think we should use John Pilger as a source and quote such a large body of text for the article for a couple reasons. First and foremost, he wasn't there despite the article reading like he was. He watched it on TV in Australia and typed up an article from there. Second, he's got a heckuva anti-US bias, which might be fine normally, but strays into incredulity when he makes claims like "Hillary Clinton started ISIS," assertions of a deep state, Anti-Russian coup to oust Trump, and that the US government was actually behind chemical attacks in Syria, as well as the downing of MH17, and the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.186.101.151 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If the IP editor is correct, that would be a good reason to remove the material to which he is referring. Anyone have access to the book used as a source here? If so, can you confirm that Pilger was simply describing what he saw on television? Bonewah (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the latest edit summary diff Pilger *did not* witness the events. As such, i think removal of this material is correct. Bonewah (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a question

What is the shape of Highway 80 today? Are the vehicles and T-54 tanks still there or are they cleared up? 73.230.178.114 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Civilian casualties in the infobox?

I think civilian casualties should be included in the infobox like in many articles on Wikipedia, It would save the reader reading time. Mordanist (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)